To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

—. . ,—____^____ _-_
pktifliral ME*iki)tfD Slaiihil
VOL. XVI. NO. 16.
NEW YOBK, SATUKDAY, SEPTEMBEE 8, 1855.
WHOLE NO. 796.
national ^ntt-Slawi) Stan&iirfc
31 North /''if/It St.. J'hiltidclphin..
THE WILLIAMSON CASE.
ui I.
!,,.io\ .Muy it please your Honours, 1 ri
use of Hie responsibility of my position.
e wuv lor one wine coining- alter me, is [
in.-, win.se place 1 leel t.but I cannot lill,
ulelliy,-nl. uildieiice whieh Ibis iiupoi'tulll
ogcther.
te of war
,,h II,.- pi-i-ulia,
mlogy. I am
, presented by th'ii
nn ill : appli'-siiii.ll lor Ihe writ of hula
ntrast ' -
W'heele:
stage, a fea
mtrasted with the :
., and made n
nthe n
e Uppalel
i corpus
Col. John
with the importance of
thi3 discussion at this time as it
tions arising under the Habeas Corpus Act of Penti
vania, ami iis imperative injunctions, and under the
creltoiiary power of tin; Court |,> eraul tlie will ul. e
sof the
Williamsoi
Ph
r liel'oi-e
ly of I'luladelphia, who is not hen-, and who
before this Court, unless Ibis writ, be g
what his counsel may say for hu
nst him, and t
H his behalf.
ig feature- start I i
d that this case presents
what the Court
Ibis, stage of it,
upp/trittnoL for ;
upon a writ where the prisoner is brought before Ihe
argument upon
How many writ
great Common wea
felon, of any
iy hear and he heard,
tire granted in tl
e injunctions of
,-c, ui Iheuppli
mary power of
"--"mofarjy
arrested
felon, ol'any pick pocket, and of any scurvy knave an
within Ihe limits of a great city, although no great
ciples tiro involved, Hint the prisoners may have '
that they may be brought before the Court to
is to he .said touching their rights before tin
determined, and thai ihey may be admitted io
cases be bailable, or discharged if a prima fac.
l, where iiiiusuiil ;
,cd ol' his liberty—
and high respectability n
. full Court, pieseiiling ami pressing his applic
rendered still more so when wc ,-, .airesl ,1 n ill, il:.- application of Col. ■I.uiii II. Wheeler, of North Carolina, to
the Federal Court for a similar writ, which was granted
without a hi'iring by a Court ol" limited iurisdic.lioii.
It i:
We have been taught to believe always that a
a writ which is snppu ,-d lo i manale lrom ike sove-
vigii, for Hie enlurgenicntaiid redre-s ol" his siibjecl.s when
oppressed.
This is Ihe foundation and theory of the
is Hie urniiiid upon which it is cla:
Williamson. But the Federal Court,
Honours, has convcrled it into a writ
t this stage
by Passmore
se, then, present s
somewhat-toi-i Iii.:-1': attire I', Ihe n,in, I of I he I'fiiiisylvania
of habeas corpus
.Supreme Court (
not i
-Indite of one of fhe Federal Courts,
a refusal of Has tfreat writ' '
in of P.
auia, through
urn to this petition of Col. John H. Wheeler,
aE"?
rig I,! e
■!' I'a
go over the pet
stun,I- upoii the record
he is res l rained of his liberty; and he "asks yo'u here th;
he may have tbe writ oi' Indi'tis cur pas grunted lo hi
according to the act of Assembly. Whether his eu
meets the n t|uireiiienfs ol' lhal act or noi, we are yet.
ay when he applies for th
high prerog;
llic Federal Court'' lie slues
.etition which should bri „
thin the act ol' Assembly of Pennsylvania,
n or a dei:
rained of his liberty.
am he claims to be
The conclusion, there-
it that had beet
which bfialleges that any party i:
He. alleges lhal certain |n.rsou:
from him by I'a.sstnor.: William
or how, his petition does; not sa
e that any party
■ivation otTiberty
t I draw is, thi
.i(hyis:ilc,-,|e,J.oyeiiii.
sitters are to be discussed at the lime the writ
liirnable on Ike hearing, lint before our owi:
.hough there is an act imperative upon them ii
ses to issue Ihe writ, we ure compelled to proceed
e.viy, eanlioic.:;,- and laboriously, beset with difficult!
timet with ojipositionat every stage of our proceedini
irmit me to allude lo one of those obstacles, whicl
q presenting itself in my path, before I proceed to
seiission ol' Un- principles I bal aft: involved ill fhe ca
eopinion ol the learned Chief Justice
t dwelling
long on if, n. try, n i can. to remove ibe impressi,
which Iks.I opinion is ,-aieulaleil i.i make unfavourable
nil re pi el. niisl-. a,-in::- ihe legal as well as the popul
mind of the cosmlry. In doing so.it shall be with
respect aud deference lo th.- learned und estimable ••eiil.li-
mau who occupies tied place-, and if, in the '
argument, anything shall escape me which ma
al which I feel in behalf
... ibis sipplic
ii I lie a
.isapplieation. and that those words used
- Ind". as ear pas net are sole __
tin- regulation of the proceedings under the writ aft.
i granting of the writ, or to the
be granted.
There arc exceptions in this a,
3 allude lo them. The act
:ommitted for any criminal
unless 1'or (reason or tclnuy." These are the o
u the act, and they ure iu the iirst seeti
WhatVfhe
iscript of the aet of 'Al Charles 2d, chap. 2, v.
suit had been in existence as a prerogative wri
;■ lime licl'orc ; but judges at that time were dep
i the " powers that lie." There was a great dis
they had. The case of Sir John hllliol, I think, v
polling tne judge lo issue tun writ, nor any mi
which a prisoner so conn nit ted upon general ■
re made, as is stated by Blackstoni
excepliiig treason and felony, th
general grant of the writ under the statute could nc
the government. There is no particular reason, pe
is, why these exceptions should have been put in ot
, though, perhaps, there may be in the case of treasoi
pilferer, though charged with a felony, looks upon the
ii thaUlarge class cmbras
ept treason and felony, t
our Honours will look a
rill see tbat it applies t
is iu these words :
r ihe por-inl of;
the first section,
the allowance of the
bis section, though referred to for the words of escep-
which the Chief .Justice, has (piotcd and I have read
to you from his opinion, does not contain those woi
The precise words of the quotation are in the t
ue of the writ
,.-.,-in.-.
,gs and hearing; thi
pith Ol
t all is that the sect
ion requires on hear
ing that the prisoner, thong
may be presented, re
■
that he shall be held
'
al, shall be admitted to
for trial, unless the charge I
shown, lbs- .indgt
' iii.
The second
st has been
uied; then Hie requirements of the
But the writ has gone forth; it
door., ol' tin.- prison, und resounded within the cell of
ask for here, the allowance and issue oi' I
the benefit
mplied with, and the v
equirements of tl
t has gone forth ;
allowed and
eetion be
1, before the words o
i application of this quotation by the Chief
i lh. duly imposed on the Judge in the
that il. almost, c
'When the opinion lirst met my eye, 1 confess
previous opinion that I had formed froi
this act, or from any study which I ha
previously given fo Ihe subject i ihink. mav it plea-
"-ours. that mv view of that matter cannot h
.St is an answer, and a full
iflence not bailable is
the Court, in the first
lu llic same opinion the case of ex parte. Lawrence, f>
othe objection that i
, that it
e which conflicts at all with the rirdil
It is only the decision oi'the
G of proceeding, lo-wit, tl
e had no writ;
d of tin- ■
i heard; the
of the :
cd. The case of ex parte Lawrence is not applic
.rther titan, as we think, to eniorce tht! position wlih
ke, that the act and its injunctions are imperati
the Court, and require the allowance of the writ
e iie\l meet, iii the opinion of the Chit
Tim I
Besii
the preset
y the 0"
("t Wliealon, 3S), the committing Court Inn!
donMtd iurisdiciit.n ,.f ike sub;ecl matter; and so
\:.l l.sitt ,: I : ;
"-Judge Cranch.
.-1 tl,,ul.let!, bid u
I edge of the Hist
n of decency and propriety, t
the guilty
i Ihe Ciini
I would not be here to argue stab
is before the Court al the u:
federal Court shot
very clearly, nay Slale Cm,
fled for!
I'ourt ol'
ter fere, and
■II', ae iiu-i-.ili. tun, ol' audi olleiirf; mid such conb.-Uinls
taken away from the federal Courls, although they
have limited jurisdiction in commitments for eoou-mp!.
'I'lie whole' sires- and weig],!. of lite million!
ir, the Chief Justice, will be removed if wo
that Col. Wheeler's application lor the
s is a case without the jurisdiction of the
nakes the proceedings coram non judict,
, We can salisfy your Honours, by pre-
Ulthoritv, that in cases „r c,„,l, tool' Ibeiv
tutis-us of interference by Cour
" ranted lb
Hie rclat
•', may il. please vour Honour, had Ihe Judge, ol
strict* Court ol' the Cniteil Slides jurisdiction in
■oAi The .federal Courts are not inferior, but they
riled, in their jurisdiction. Their jurisdiction is
:d from the Constitiilioti und from the nets of Con-
lassed in pursuance thereof. There arc three
case critically. It wf
ery was involved in t
implication was made
the bupreme Cour
im, under the laws ol Missouri.
a writ of error to the Supreni(
The question of freedom or
decision of the Court below :
the United States, and it tins dis-
thin the appellate
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States,
law of the United Stales
Jurisdiction is not to be
a question of freedom or
slavery is involved, though such question is exclusively
.■ni/.ul>Ie in ihe case ol fugitives from service —
the Cult,-,! Stales I'otitis and J in.be s. or h
■sliun was raised ami decided In a Slate
son not being
why'.' II.-, -hi;
The t
ing ex parte and in perso
i should give
[ thai ri,uld b
which :!..- pi,
, there i
which
,. und thai provision, as; fur
uleaded lo hi' applicable lo
or, CI. \\ in-cler, wus si
liiu, lhal, this! difference of
licliou lo Ihe (lliled Slates
jurisdiction in all
:,!' the .Slut..: il,
luthority, there
which
ted. There
parte application nr a peli-
ttaoeas corpus witnia the law on this head.
:t class of cases is that of fugitives from justice,
iy pretence that this is such a case'! We have
n Hiese. mutters before your Honours, thai the
I' our client may not tie (il.-recanled, I'm- the
ilge who delivered Ihe opinion of the United
as-innplio:: of juris, ;>: ion by him. We
upon il, iu order thai we mav nat.be charged with neglect
,f duty towards our client. Such authority eerlainb
■tutno! be !',.hh:,1. Can it be salt! lhal. Jane, th.- alleged
ihe I'.l-i:.!
: powerful -i.-li
. 1 Ik!
i, should
that they will "do
which have united us in
ghbours immediately
this .-'■ -.
Iirelhret
that kind upon such
tethinginthi
Slates.
bly declarit
r _. this within the jurisdiction of ihe United
Slates Cni'.n. I hope file day will never conic when il.
will be attempted to stretch the authority ol' ihv. law fur
i that <
vitiiin t
h the voluntary con
"ate where
There are two eases which I ihink propst b
milium Judge, an upright and learned i
.... ....... The CBli(i is (x ^iit.le Simm0l]S.%
t Court Reports, 396. In that e
i : i. ■ ■ .-
e Stole wltero they belonged to t
.lllllge Wiislliliuti
Washington Circ
'' repeal of any portion of the proviso or exemp-
Carolina, he appeared b
without the slave tht
being evidently with
from Judge Wniihiii
Judge'Washington s
act of 1703, and I .:
This is the syllabt
-e the Judge (whether with
- -' e alleged '
■ol), and
iy, the alleged slave
control), and askr
of removal. Bi
Aud these are the words of ike Judge :
,-. t
Honours have
from the office,
-Have you a copy of the
I! is primed in tin- paper-book, and your
d all the proceedings except t
signed by the cferk and certified by the Judge. If i
within the course of their procedure to traverse a ret
not by the verdict of a jury, but by the opinion of
Court on parol proofs, and not to certify the travers
the exemplification at all, it is an irregularity that
of unusual hardship upon the professional gentl.
engaged, hardship of a kind which 11 ~ '
enced in my professional life. I nev
court, upon the spur of the moment,
l",,r , sideratioti, was met with n refusal
(Si baf
Itw
t (3 Wilson, 1
'nentforconti
,,t llic privileges oi Ike Mouse of Commons
Judges nor the people of that day ventured lo question
.in- j;i red ie tin,, of ihe llou-c, cither iu matters of contempt or matters of privilege, in violation ol which contempts were committed. Il is, therefore, an author:!;-.
notapplicable to the prosentcut:e.us, 1 think,your II,incurs
will see. We allege that there is no jurisdiction louuthnr-
e the n
f the wrii
n the c:
wilkoHl an iuslai
al of time t
leuia.eil .luiigc, v,h:), uftir hearing ike argintieii! on ou
side, uni niter tile counsel on the oilier sale had decline
tospeuk on aceoiuit of a waul of time 1'or prepa.rutioi
suid lo lite euiiu.el lo wIhhu in- denied time, that he mus
take a week to prepare his opinion.
I have given your Honours the syllabus ol e.epan
Simmons, and tbe words of Judge Washington's opins.:
I li-re is his:h authority. I lem is—not using the term i
s of <:
e under my eye—ther
slave had been brought into this £
tylvania, the slave clain
I in anyway to, the Lunch,,: ii
,1 slave, the law would have In
■re is another ease to which
■; .
s the case t
then
t traversable;
•r labour,
and uujusi K. Ihe defendant.
The ease ""
■
-' " mplete,an"
e decided
granted in favour of liberty to produce the body of a per-
■was allege,], by ihe r.-sponilent in his return, to
,n, who was thus.
Hint there is
t please your Honours, i
n wide
slave. The rt
person, who was th
lator, or llic friends of the I
id that the party was fret
Courts of the United Slates d.■pens'
th section of the net is the oi
t Court Of the iliuieil Slates
tire bonds—matters utterly foreign to this question.
Hi section of the net prescribes"that the Courts ol
lited States shall have power to issue the writ ol
' habeas corpus, given in the first part of the I'our-
li'enth section, is iu aid ol'Ihe jurisdiction ol' Ihe Court,
The former being-a grain of power iu aid ,-!
thin Hit! jurisdiction thereto!'..re conferred :
the kilter in favour of fin: liberty of the citizen. Unless,
lb.-i-efiiie. something can be found in the ninth section to
of the Fed
>wer given
purl of the fourteen;!! si.etio;], which gilded (n commitment., and bin.lings (1V(.t. |
he Sti;!!- Court is e.ypressly c\-elndei|, T]
;n sustained by case alter case, ihe im;
which is Dorr's case, with which yo1
II: b,.r
tter, for I cannot find, as I before said, ui
prei.ed.-n1 upon which Use jnrisdii-iiou cun be sustain,.
before Judges Crier and Kane in the Feder
ud their doelriues. have been repudiated by tl
. sit.ioii we lirst take, and upon which we hope ■
obtain this writ, uud Ihe discharge of ibe prisoner, is. il
: of jurisdiction in the Federal Court upon tl
presented by Col. Join, II Wk.-.-lcr. d Xorili
'fhe next question that comes up is,"" '
makes a full,
the'party who asks t
■'eve a party ft
permuted lo leavers
ought. I.o he good lav
■' i Honour, the Chi,
t have cited and r
I wish, before !ak
if the
I knoi
authority, in
of record, uud .
s of Courts
' ulVrn-'h -
held and
of the stihjecl-matter. Let me __
"onours. We have had with us a very estimabl
lan, who presides over u Court of 1 iiiladelphi
id County, i,I' limited jurisdiction, with power t
,-iiicrlain civil, but not criminal, pleas. Wc migl:
e a case—but. ecrlainly not under Ihe ailuuiiisiri
the President Judge or either ol'his associates—i
which, by an usarpaliou and assumption of power, tha
ighl undertake.
of the man at its head 1
my. Such
immured within
M* by
i individual, to try
t Court of the City and ^County of
senceofyour Hone
iburly of Ihe e
Court:
,":■■„,:
a ihe |,
justify ii
e is there
pposed and the t
rference i
ing iu the powers i
difference is there between i
■t of the United
ind, with all deference ti
a case like that. What
case which I have
by the District Com
3 not think my supposed case*wot
iranl. assumption of power and jm
one is, in which Passmore "Willi
respondent and victim, and the lion. Judg-e of th,
" ' Court of the United States for '* "
i,I' I't nn.yb
■ United Slates ive llic hlusletn
ia the actor.
v refer your Honours to several cases which
Kennedy, 1 Pelers's Cin
i to be found reported i
ceedings of any tribunal in
discharge a prisoner, c
" "Dart,if it.'
j from a Federal Court, if il clearly
i that c
I, the j
S I have, I hope it will lie gom! law yet.
niithority. It is cerlahily law.
.Mr. Cn.i'iN—Am I to un
Chief Jti.s1.tce. to s:iv lhat if the
llisl.riel Court, of the United
jurisdiction, that they arc er.
if it has kept
tinders!:,!,,! Ius Honour, tin-
.f.wi.i—I concede the very words of the
; just cited to be undoubted law.
—I suppose the decision settles that
Chief.
--This is
■cisely our point
the benefit
Ihuf llic District Court of the
I lilletl Stales: had not jiiris'dicliou. In such Case"
that the State Court would have power to disehai
face of the record.
.Mr. Cn.ri.v— Then it will be necessary for me to f
nsck ,,| the record,perhaps; but l. should like to gi
up..u ihe
I Adolplms
Im, Ihe pre.
Judge l„e
hat. in relati
mc'eofjurisd
.tiif,—We frouuently go a little fur
hi lo soldiers. Weseix
United States officer, dii
,-.,. :!;,
i, may it please your Honour.
Mr. Gilpi.v—I have just mentioned the cas ot'Holden
. Smith, which I want to give in brief, to be found in
- Adolplms & Fills, new series, page 841. It is re-
irkable in some of its features. It was a case of com-
" r contempt, not by an inferior Court, but by a
' " iceedincs at law for damages were
iitting,by
lord. Proceedings at law for damages w
, Ihe a
risilie
n oi tl
nullity, and that the Judge n
"We take Col. Wheeler's petition as presented to the
ourt, we give the Judge the full benefit of tho facta set
•rth upon Ihe face of thi' record, and we say 11 int. ibere
There is another case to which I would di
I. have also
nie.-eilings.
the head of
fthe return. But I wanl
his Honour, the
; of Thomas vs.
.uthority on one pnini, os-lab-
sidings upon the traverse ol
belore the Federal Judge were wilfully wrong
lids Ciaii-1. i
.1 he held the
idi-tl lhat lb,- r
t, in the
on of freedom
t also Hu
ve .State
■i- citizen, a respondent, in a hnluvs
enforce the claim of property noi
is and e,inclusions by the Judge,
men! Ibr contempt wdhoul bail or
aye etpial law all around. This
or us as well as for them. I know
-1 nst ice. so viewed if, or he would
edonit inTlionnisys. Ciwon.
:; my seat, to call the nlleuliou oi
if Thomas vs. Crosson, to the very
other, and whether judicial
the justification set up by tlie Sheril
e defendant had
District Courtof Ike Linked
was not. justified by that
proceeding;: before II
had no jurisdiction,
by counsel, before tii
id Ihul in this case ■
il ourselves of the w
ami Ksine, und .];,- ptoccodings in Crosson';
ied in Wallace, Jr., " '
the report of the several c;
■ .:..
i Thomas vs. Crosson, the. p,
'hy should not the proceed
e Judge Kane, he held nu
aud void when Crosson
tr coram nonjudice^h-ym
• held
;•., this alleged sl
iu 'Williamson'
void?
discharged, the
cerated
ppose to-morrow, or any othei
found walking in the stre
wealth of Pennsyli
like ci
by one of Ihe Judges of tin's Court, upon which
is arrested, as in T'
Court of the United
-(.lierilf lakes his insli-iicl ions from the 0]
d walking in the streets or highways of the
" " nnsylvania, an" '
a of Thomas,
'fhe lllstli-
Thiun
He. :
i prtsi
the body whieh he had undci
breath, by his counsel,
Mr. Marshal, take the She-
i not obeying our order
'he Sheriff is then requir
te he has not prot
t; and when he (
hment, be says i
low for contempt
discharged by the interJoreiice i>
'■■.:".;•"■ In relieve himself fro
ting to commitment for contempt of Court. You si
,; 1 will
, •ubinil-
it the Court relieve
Justice Lewi
Mr. GixriH—Unless Passmore Williamson is rclievet
io not see how the Court could relieve him.
Chief Justice Lewis—The difference between the cas
Thomas vs. Crosson and the one now before us is, tha
rosson and others were in arrest under the custody of
ate officer, in pursuance of u prut ■ess issued by a" soy,
reign Si site, and that the act of 1789, giving jo ri-di.in.
' ■'•lulcs Courts to issue writts of habec
prohibits them from relieving person
the United Stales Coiul. i
appearing, through the whole record, tha
Court had undertaken to nullify the process oi tne star
and lo relieve a man from imprisonment under that pr,
cess, in deGance of the act of Congress giving jurisdictio:
Thus they put forward the allegation tha:
,, ■.!'■ , ■
them to relieve a United States officer, who was impr
sum-.' by int. Slale fur any ad. dune under, and in pure
ance of an act of Congress, and the decision in that cat
was lhal il. did net appear on the record that Crosse
was imprisoned ,. : nnylbing done under any act of Co:
gn-ss, bin fur an outrage committed against all law.
Mr, (jii.rrs I should be very glad if I could see tl
distinction ill awn by your 1! mr : lint ii si-,-ms to n
Judge McLean. The
case of Barry vs. Mcrct
103, S. C
castody of a child.
.1 Ike writ of/..-
■ ' 'nferred. W
tateU
it proceeds for the port
LSflO,'
porlanl decision ,-t' Judge .Mcl.eau
3. Marshal," &e.
Proceedings were begun before a United States Com-
U. S. Marshal," &e.
Slave
Marshal refased
the State Judge. An affidavit and p.
tted for contempt by
■r Urn.
I by hill
ili-y a
n of this
mer, which is all that we ask yonr Honours to do
May it please your honours, m
- "ed m the discussion of '
dwell any longer upor
lake way
and neglects.
ARGUMENT(
Mi „
wh'n-h 1 have already occupied ii
am not disposed to dwe
trh I leave it in a ragged
gentleman who will very ably and fully supply all
Mr.Mni
liamson stands committed and detained for i
osed criminal matter, other than treason or felony.
n due form he prays for the writ of habeas corpus.
■The petition shows that Passmore Wil-
imitted and detained "
nal matter, other titan t
" I writ shall be isst
laity upon auy Jndge who s
tird tbe same. Im
rected tl
shall be submitted mi tin- ijiicsti, us which n
■ or neglect to
banals of justice, and which,
' T most habitually pay to tni
of Pennsylvania, against
(. all tri-
. public an.!
- establishment of
lory right
ller.-i,,i
nt. Chief Jusiiec Tilghinan held the i
(exhausted by llic issuing- ol'the iirst \\
iry, and he refused to issue ;
ted States or
_ matter (unless
I'.-liinyi, Ihe .Supreme Court has never
llimst'.A's '.nst: mnl /,.-..-/,-.•..:.-.,',,.,(■",■ ,-„„-, both decided be-
■c Chief Justice I'ilgbman.atid in fact, every ease o
} kind that has hitherto been presented to the Court, or
a .Judge in vacation, is clear to this point.
I protest, therefore, against the course pursued upon
i directly contrary to the express
-the
ments of the great s
suspendi n,
authority—and further, it
:ction pro
li ot P.lghts provi. Its shall i:ol I,.'exercised u
penlied (even by ihe Legislature) unless when, in eases of
"-- or invasion, public safety may require if,
ly, Because, by the coarse 'putsued, the peti-
w incuicfriiKii in the city of Philadelphia, is
''■■■■■■■■:'■ .-,.-■', ■ ■ ■ .:
;h the spirit or letter of every eonsiitutiou m
this country has assured to him), of being present at the
discussion of the tpiosi.lon of his personal liberty, und of
participating in thr' J:—
Third' "
required
Because the counsel of the peril
to argue, ex parte, questions on
ihcir decision, the respondent has the rigil!
which, before
lolled ami om-
have n-sp.eil'ully submitted lo tin- Court'
' nde
ideratious upon the q
i proceed, under the express direction o
■1 Coui't (if ikeUruledSlam.
' " under process of ihe I'lis-
'■ " -nnteraptof that
■t of the United States
the proceedings m thai Court, which resulted in his commitment, were wholly and absokit, ly
■a,a ,,o,i indite, and were therefore null and void.
Third, That ike fad thru the commitment is as for a
itempt does riot preclude this Court from iinpiiniig
to the jurisdu
sses to be found
First, The Su
ennsylvania is i
Cour
e Court of the Commonwealth of
I' limited. 1
lulioual p
,f the imprisonment,
r whatever pretende
i of Pennsylvania and
ihow by
entakenfrom yen ; m
inquire
ten of P
,-. I speak
a citizen of " ""
States, sincerely
when I say that j. neiieve neiuier ci
served upon any other principle or by any othei
Ihaulhe exercise, whenever the occasion shall unse, ol
the just nulhnrit.yof the Stale Courts which is now
invoked.
In t»i,.-i::dA case (Brightleifs Reports,'.)), in which
Chief Justice Tilghman awarded si writ of habra.s corpus
from the District Court of the United States, the
the hearing upon thei
issued from the Dial
brought forward d
Justirchadarighi
should be clearly of opinion l
Unite
The Courts ,,l 'I. ■ 1 ■;;■ .1 Si '• ■ I ,.-■■
ity in any case in which the State Courts may trench upon
the rightful jurisdiction of the Feder;
and tfic only mode of s
calm niisl firm per Ton nance of tl
this regard, by the State and ;
Court of the United 31
irpus—right!'j interlered,
I Honours will see—where a party w
the Supreme Court, in 5th Howard,
reported
iLean, of
who interfered by
as I think ; "
custody for
decided tllut Ihey had no appellate puvor.
The other, and a most important ease, i
was decided by Judge McLean, of ike
-■' " ' terfered t"
e people themselves;
' "ie con-
cable, I
If the
State and Federal, and of
.,1 Ike
should have, indeed, i

—. . ,—____^____ _-_
pktifliral ME*iki)tfD Slaiihil
VOL. XVI. NO. 16.
NEW YOBK, SATUKDAY, SEPTEMBEE 8, 1855.
WHOLE NO. 796.
national ^ntt-Slawi) Stan&iirfc
31 North /''if/It St.. J'hiltidclphin..
THE WILLIAMSON CASE.
ui I.
!,,.io\ .Muy it please your Honours, 1 ri
use of Hie responsibility of my position.
e wuv lor one wine coining- alter me, is [
in.-, win.se place 1 leel t.but I cannot lill,
ulelliy,-nl. uildieiice whieh Ibis iiupoi'tulll
ogcther.
te of war
,,h II,.- pi-i-ulia,
mlogy. I am
, presented by th'ii
nn ill : appli'-siiii.ll lor Ihe writ of hula
ntrast ' -
W'heele:
stage, a fea
mtrasted with the :
., and made n
nthe n
e Uppalel
i corpus
Col. John
with the importance of
thi3 discussion at this time as it
tions arising under the Habeas Corpus Act of Penti
vania, ami iis imperative injunctions, and under the
creltoiiary power of tin; Court |,> eraul tlie will ul. e
sof the
Williamsoi
Ph
r liel'oi-e
ly of I'luladelphia, who is not hen-, and who
before this Court, unless Ibis writ, be g
what his counsel may say for hu
nst him, and t
H his behalf.
ig feature- start I i
d that this case presents
what the Court
Ibis, stage of it,
upp/trittnoL for ;
upon a writ where the prisoner is brought before Ihe
argument upon
How many writ
great Common wea
felon, of any
iy hear and he heard,
tire granted in tl
e injunctions of
,-c, ui Iheuppli
mary power of
"--"mofarjy
arrested
felon, ol'any pick pocket, and of any scurvy knave an
within Ihe limits of a great city, although no great
ciples tiro involved, Hint the prisoners may have '
that they may be brought before the Court to
is to he .said touching their rights before tin
determined, and thai ihey may be admitted io
cases be bailable, or discharged if a prima fac.
l, where iiiiusuiil ;
,cd ol' his liberty—
and high respectability n
. full Court, pieseiiling ami pressing his applic
rendered still more so when wc ,-, .airesl ,1 n ill, il:.- application of Col. ■I.uiii II. Wheeler, of North Carolina, to
the Federal Court for a similar writ, which was granted
without a hi'iring by a Court ol" limited iurisdic.lioii.
It i:
We have been taught to believe always that a
a writ which is snppu ,-d lo i manale lrom ike sove-
vigii, for Hie enlurgenicntaiid redre-s ol" his siibjecl.s when
oppressed.
This is Ihe foundation and theory of the
is Hie urniiiid upon which it is cla:
Williamson. But the Federal Court,
Honours, has convcrled it into a writ
t this stage
by Passmore
se, then, present s
somewhat-toi-i Iii.:-1': attire I', Ihe n,in, I of I he I'fiiiisylvania
of habeas corpus
.Supreme Court (
not i
-Indite of one of fhe Federal Courts,
a refusal of Has tfreat writ' '
in of P.
auia, through
urn to this petition of Col. John H. Wheeler,
aE"?
rig I,! e
■!' I'a
go over the pet
stun,I- upoii the record
he is res l rained of his liberty; and he "asks yo'u here th;
he may have tbe writ oi' Indi'tis cur pas grunted lo hi
according to the act of Assembly. Whether his eu
meets the n t|uireiiienfs ol' lhal act or noi, we are yet.
ay when he applies for th
high prerog;
llic Federal Court'' lie slues
.etition which should bri „
thin the act ol' Assembly of Pennsylvania,
n or a dei:
rained of his liberty.
am he claims to be
The conclusion, there-
it that had beet
which bfialleges that any party i:
He. alleges lhal certain |n.rsou:
from him by I'a.sstnor.: William
or how, his petition does; not sa
e that any party
■ivation otTiberty
t I draw is, thi
.i(hyis:ilc,-,|e,J.oyeiiii.
sitters are to be discussed at the lime the writ
liirnable on Ike hearing, lint before our owi:
.hough there is an act imperative upon them ii
ses to issue Ihe writ, we ure compelled to proceed
e.viy, eanlioic.:;,- and laboriously, beset with difficult!
timet with ojipositionat every stage of our proceedini
irmit me to allude lo one of those obstacles, whicl
q presenting itself in my path, before I proceed to
seiission ol' Un- principles I bal aft: involved ill fhe ca
eopinion ol the learned Chief Justice
t dwelling
long on if, n. try, n i can. to remove ibe impressi,
which Iks.I opinion is ,-aieulaleil i.i make unfavourable
nil re pi el. niisl-. a,-in::- ihe legal as well as the popul
mind of the cosmlry. In doing so.it shall be with
respect aud deference lo th.- learned und estimable ••eiil.li-
mau who occupies tied place-, and if, in the '
argument, anything shall escape me which ma
al which I feel in behalf
... ibis sipplic
ii I lie a
.isapplieation. and that those words used
- Ind". as ear pas net are sole __
tin- regulation of the proceedings under the writ aft.
i granting of the writ, or to the
be granted.
There arc exceptions in this a,
3 allude lo them. The act
:ommitted for any criminal
unless 1'or (reason or tclnuy." These are the o
u the act, and they ure iu the iirst seeti
WhatVfhe
iscript of the aet of 'Al Charles 2d, chap. 2, v.
suit had been in existence as a prerogative wri
;■ lime licl'orc ; but judges at that time were dep
i the " powers that lie." There was a great dis
they had. The case of Sir John hllliol, I think, v
polling tne judge lo issue tun writ, nor any mi
which a prisoner so conn nit ted upon general ■
re made, as is stated by Blackstoni
excepliiig treason and felony, th
general grant of the writ under the statute could nc
the government. There is no particular reason, pe
is, why these exceptions should have been put in ot
, though, perhaps, there may be in the case of treasoi
pilferer, though charged with a felony, looks upon the
ii thaUlarge class cmbras
ept treason and felony, t
our Honours will look a
rill see tbat it applies t
is iu these words :
r ihe por-inl of;
the first section,
the allowance of the
bis section, though referred to for the words of escep-
which the Chief .Justice, has (piotcd and I have read
to you from his opinion, does not contain those woi
The precise words of the quotation are in the t
ue of the writ
,.-.,-in.-.
,gs and hearing; thi
pith Ol
t all is that the sect
ion requires on hear
ing that the prisoner, thong
may be presented, re
■
that he shall be held
'
al, shall be admitted to
for trial, unless the charge I
shown, lbs- .indgt
' iii.
The second
st has been
uied; then Hie requirements of the
But the writ has gone forth; it
door., ol' tin.- prison, und resounded within the cell of
ask for here, the allowance and issue oi' I
the benefit
mplied with, and the v
equirements of tl
t has gone forth ;
allowed and
eetion be
1, before the words o
i application of this quotation by the Chief
i lh. duly imposed on the Judge in the
that il. almost, c
'When the opinion lirst met my eye, 1 confess
previous opinion that I had formed froi
this act, or from any study which I ha
previously given fo Ihe subject i ihink. mav it plea-
"-ours. that mv view of that matter cannot h
.St is an answer, and a full
iflence not bailable is
the Court, in the first
lu llic same opinion the case of ex parte. Lawrence, f>
othe objection that i
, that it
e which conflicts at all with the rirdil
It is only the decision oi'the
G of proceeding, lo-wit, tl
e had no writ;
d of tin- ■
i heard; the
of the :
cd. The case of ex parte Lawrence is not applic
.rther titan, as we think, to eniorce tht! position wlih
ke, that the act and its injunctions are imperati
the Court, and require the allowance of the writ
e iie\l meet, iii the opinion of the Chit
Tim I
Besii
the preset
y the 0"
("t Wliealon, 3S), the committing Court Inn!
donMtd iurisdiciit.n ,.f ike sub;ecl matter; and so
\:.l l.sitt ,: I : ;
"-Judge Cranch.
.-1 tl,,ul.let!, bid u
I edge of the Hist
n of decency and propriety, t
the guilty
i Ihe Ciini
I would not be here to argue stab
is before the Court al the u:
federal Court shot
very clearly, nay Slale Cm,
fled for!
I'ourt ol'
ter fere, and
■II', ae iiu-i-.ili. tun, ol' audi olleiirf; mid such conb.-Uinls
taken away from the federal Courls, although they
have limited jurisdiction in commitments for eoou-mp!.
'I'lie whole' sires- and weig],!. of lite million!
ir, the Chief Justice, will be removed if wo
that Col. Wheeler's application lor the
s is a case without the jurisdiction of the
nakes the proceedings coram non judict,
, We can salisfy your Honours, by pre-
Ulthoritv, that in cases „r c,„,l, tool' Ibeiv
tutis-us of interference by Cour
" ranted lb
Hie rclat
•', may il. please vour Honour, had Ihe Judge, ol
strict* Court ol' the Cniteil Slides jurisdiction in
■oAi The .federal Courts are not inferior, but they
riled, in their jurisdiction. Their jurisdiction is
:d from the Constitiilioti und from the nets of Con-
lassed in pursuance thereof. There arc three
case critically. It wf
ery was involved in t
implication was made
the bupreme Cour
im, under the laws ol Missouri.
a writ of error to the Supreni(
The question of freedom or
decision of the Court below :
the United States, and it tins dis-
thin the appellate
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States,
law of the United Stales
Jurisdiction is not to be
a question of freedom or
slavery is involved, though such question is exclusively
.■ni/.ul>Ie in ihe case ol fugitives from service —
the Cult,-,! Stales I'otitis and J in.be s. or h
■sliun was raised ami decided In a Slate
son not being
why'.' II.-, -hi;
The t
ing ex parte and in perso
i should give
[ thai ri,uld b
which :!..- pi,
, there i
which
,. und thai provision, as; fur
uleaded lo hi' applicable lo
or, CI. \\ in-cler, wus si
liiu, lhal, this! difference of
licliou lo Ihe (lliled Slates
jurisdiction in all
:,!' the .Slut..: il,
luthority, there
which
ted. There
parte application nr a peli-
ttaoeas corpus witnia the law on this head.
:t class of cases is that of fugitives from justice,
iy pretence that this is such a case'! We have
n Hiese. mutters before your Honours, thai the
I' our client may not tie (il.-recanled, I'm- the
ilge who delivered Ihe opinion of the United
as-innplio:: of juris, ;>: ion by him. We
upon il, iu order thai we mav nat.be charged with neglect
,f duty towards our client. Such authority eerlainb
■tutno! be !',.hh:,1. Can it be salt! lhal. Jane, th.- alleged
ihe I'.l-i:.!
: powerful -i.-li
. 1 Ik!
i, should
that they will "do
which have united us in
ghbours immediately
this .-'■ -.
Iirelhret
that kind upon such
tethinginthi
Slates.
bly declarit
r _. this within the jurisdiction of ihe United
Slates Cni'.n. I hope file day will never conic when il.
will be attempted to stretch the authority ol' ihv. law fur
i that <
vitiiin t
h the voluntary con
"ate where
There are two eases which I ihink propst b
milium Judge, an upright and learned i
.... ....... The CBli(i is (x ^iit.le Simm0l]S.%
t Court Reports, 396. In that e
i : i. ■ ■ .-
e Stole wltero they belonged to t
.lllllge Wiislliliuti
Washington Circ
'' repeal of any portion of the proviso or exemp-
Carolina, he appeared b
without the slave tht
being evidently with
from Judge Wniihiii
Judge'Washington s
act of 1703, and I .:
This is the syllabt
-e the Judge (whether with
- -' e alleged '
■ol), and
iy, the alleged slave
control), and askr
of removal. Bi
Aud these are the words of ike Judge :
,-. t
Honours have
from the office,
-Have you a copy of the
I! is primed in tin- paper-book, and your
d all the proceedings except t
signed by the cferk and certified by the Judge. If i
within the course of their procedure to traverse a ret
not by the verdict of a jury, but by the opinion of
Court on parol proofs, and not to certify the travers
the exemplification at all, it is an irregularity that
of unusual hardship upon the professional gentl.
engaged, hardship of a kind which 11 ~ '
enced in my professional life. I nev
court, upon the spur of the moment,
l",,r , sideratioti, was met with n refusal
(Si baf
Itw
t (3 Wilson, 1
'nentforconti
,,t llic privileges oi Ike Mouse of Commons
Judges nor the people of that day ventured lo question
.in- j;i red ie tin,, of ihe llou-c, cither iu matters of contempt or matters of privilege, in violation ol which contempts were committed. Il is, therefore, an author:!;-.
notapplicable to the prosentcut:e.us, 1 think,your II,incurs
will see. We allege that there is no jurisdiction louuthnr-
e the n
f the wrii
n the c:
wilkoHl an iuslai
al of time t
leuia.eil .luiigc, v,h:), uftir hearing ike argintieii! on ou
side, uni niter tile counsel on the oilier sale had decline
tospeuk on aceoiuit of a waul of time 1'or prepa.rutioi
suid lo lite euiiu.el lo wIhhu in- denied time, that he mus
take a week to prepare his opinion.
I have given your Honours the syllabus ol e.epan
Simmons, and tbe words of Judge Washington's opins.:
I li-re is his:h authority. I lem is—not using the term i
s of wer given
purl of the fourteen;!! si.etio;], which gilded (n commitment., and bin.lings (1V(.t. |
he Sti;!!- Court is e.ypressly c\-elndei|, T]
;n sustained by case alter case, ihe im;
which is Dorr's case, with which yo1
II: b,.r
tter, for I cannot find, as I before said, ui
prei.ed.-n1 upon which Use jnrisdii-iiou cun be sustain,.
before Judges Crier and Kane in the Feder
ud their doelriues. have been repudiated by tl
. sit.ioii we lirst take, and upon which we hope ■
obtain this writ, uud Ihe discharge of ibe prisoner, is. il
: of jurisdiction in the Federal Court upon tl
presented by Col. Join, II Wk.-.-lcr. d Xorili
'fhe next question that comes up is,"" '
makes a full,
the'party who asks t
■'eve a party ft
permuted lo leavers
ought. I.o he good lav
■' i Honour, the Chi,
t have cited and r
I wish, before !ak
if the
I knoi
authority, in
of record, uud .
s of Courts
' ulVrn-'h -
held and
of the stihjecl-matter. Let me __
"onours. We have had with us a very estimabl
lan, who presides over u Court of 1 iiiladelphi
id County, i,I' limited jurisdiction, with power t
,-iiicrlain civil, but not criminal, pleas. Wc migl:
e a case—but. ecrlainly not under Ihe ailuuiiisiri
the President Judge or either ol'his associates—i
which, by an usarpaliou and assumption of power, tha
ighl undertake.
of the man at its head 1
my. Such
immured within
M* by
i individual, to try
t Court of the City and ^County of
senceofyour Hone
iburly of Ihe e
Court:
,":■■„,:
a ihe |,
justify ii
e is there
pposed and the t
rference i
ing iu the powers i
difference is there between i
■t of the United
ind, with all deference ti
a case like that. What
case which I have
by the District Com
3 not think my supposed case*wot
iranl. assumption of power and jm
one is, in which Passmore "Willi
respondent and victim, and the lion. Judg-e of th,
" ' Court of the United States for '* "
i,I' I't nn.yb
■ United Slates ive llic hlusletn
ia the actor.
v refer your Honours to several cases which
Kennedy, 1 Pelers's Cin
i to be found reported i
ceedings of any tribunal in
discharge a prisoner, c
" "Dart,if it.'
j from a Federal Court, if il clearly
i that c
I, the j
S I have, I hope it will lie gom! law yet.
niithority. It is cerlahily law.
.Mr. Cn.i'iN—Am I to un
Chief Jti.s1.tce. to s:iv lhat if the
llisl.riel Court, of the United
jurisdiction, that they arc er.
if it has kept
tinders!:,!,,! Ius Honour, tin-
.f.wi.i—I concede the very words of the
; just cited to be undoubted law.
—I suppose the decision settles that
Chief.
--This is
■cisely our point
the benefit
Ihuf llic District Court of the
I lilletl Stales: had not jiiris'dicliou. In such Case"
that the State Court would have power to disehai
face of the record.
.Mr. Cn.ri.v— Then it will be necessary for me to f
nsck ,,| the record,perhaps; but l. should like to gi
up..u ihe
I Adolplms
Im, Ihe pre.
Judge l„e
hat. in relati
mc'eofjurisd
.tiif,—We frouuently go a little fur
hi lo soldiers. Weseix
United States officer, dii
,-.,. :!;,
i, may it please your Honour.
Mr. Gilpi.v—I have just mentioned the cas ot'Holden
. Smith, which I want to give in brief, to be found in
- Adolplms & Fills, new series, page 841. It is re-
irkable in some of its features. It was a case of com-
" r contempt, not by an inferior Court, but by a
' " iceedincs at law for damages were
iitting,by
lord. Proceedings at law for damages w
, Ihe a
risilie
n oi tl
nullity, and that the Judge n
"We take Col. Wheeler's petition as presented to the
ourt, we give the Judge the full benefit of tho facta set
•rth upon Ihe face of thi' record, and we say 11 int. ibere
There is another case to which I would di
I. have also
nie.-eilings.
the head of
fthe return. But I wanl
his Honour, the
; of Thomas vs.
.uthority on one pnini, os-lab-
sidings upon the traverse ol
belore the Federal Judge were wilfully wrong
lids Ciaii-1. i
.1 he held the
idi-tl lhat lb,- r
t, in the
on of freedom
t also Hu
ve .State
■i- citizen, a respondent, in a hnluvs
enforce the claim of property noi
is and e,inclusions by the Judge,
men! Ibr contempt wdhoul bail or
aye etpial law all around. This
or us as well as for them. I know
-1 nst ice. so viewed if, or he would
edonit inTlionnisys. Ciwon.
:; my seat, to call the nlleuliou oi
if Thomas vs. Crosson, to the very
other, and whether judicial
the justification set up by tlie Sheril
e defendant had
District Courtof Ike Linked
was not. justified by that
proceeding;: before II
had no jurisdiction,
by counsel, before tii
id Ihul in this case ■
il ourselves of the w
ami Ksine, und .];,- ptoccodings in Crosson';
ied in Wallace, Jr., " '
the report of the several c;
■ .:..
i Thomas vs. Crosson, the. p,
'hy should not the proceed
e Judge Kane, he held nu
aud void when Crosson
tr coram nonjudice^h-ym
• held
;•., this alleged sl
iu 'Williamson'
void?
discharged, the
cerated
ppose to-morrow, or any othei
found walking in the stre
wealth of Pennsyli
like ci
by one of Ihe Judges of tin's Court, upon which
is arrested, as in T'
Court of the United
-(.lierilf lakes his insli-iicl ions from the 0]
d walking in the streets or highways of the
" " nnsylvania, an" '
a of Thomas,
'fhe lllstli-
Thiun
He. :
i prtsi
the body whieh he had undci
breath, by his counsel,
Mr. Marshal, take the She-
i not obeying our order
'he Sheriff is then requir
te he has not prot
t; and when he (
hment, be says i
low for contempt
discharged by the interJoreiice i>
'■■.:".;•"■ In relieve himself fro
ting to commitment for contempt of Court. You si
,; 1 will
, •ubinil-
it the Court relieve
Justice Lewi
Mr. GixriH—Unless Passmore Williamson is rclievet
io not see how the Court could relieve him.
Chief Justice Lewis—The difference between the cas
Thomas vs. Crosson and the one now before us is, tha
rosson and others were in arrest under the custody of
ate officer, in pursuance of u prut ■ess issued by a" soy,
reign Si site, and that the act of 1789, giving jo ri-di.in.
' ■'•lulcs Courts to issue writts of habec
prohibits them from relieving person
the United Stales Coiul. i
appearing, through the whole record, tha
Court had undertaken to nullify the process oi tne star
and lo relieve a man from imprisonment under that pr,
cess, in deGance of the act of Congress giving jurisdictio:
Thus they put forward the allegation tha:
,, ■.!'■ , ■
them to relieve a United States officer, who was impr
sum-.' by int. Slale fur any ad. dune under, and in pure
ance of an act of Congress, and the decision in that cat
was lhal il. did net appear on the record that Crosse
was imprisoned ,. : nnylbing done under any act of Co:
gn-ss, bin fur an outrage committed against all law.
Mr, (jii.rrs I should be very glad if I could see tl
distinction ill awn by your 1! mr : lint ii si-,-ms to n
Judge McLean. The
case of Barry vs. Mcrct
103, S. C
castody of a child.
.1 Ike writ of/..-
■ ' 'nferred. W
tateU
it proceeds for the port
LSflO,'
porlanl decision ,-t' Judge .Mcl.eau
3. Marshal," &e.
Proceedings were begun before a United States Com-
U. S. Marshal," &e.
Slave
Marshal refased
the State Judge. An affidavit and p.
tted for contempt by
■r Urn.
I by hill
ili-y a
n of this
mer, which is all that we ask yonr Honours to do
May it please your honours, m
- "ed m the discussion of '
dwell any longer upor
lake way
and neglects.
ARGUMENT(
Mi „
wh'n-h 1 have already occupied ii
am not disposed to dwe
trh I leave it in a ragged
gentleman who will very ably and fully supply all
Mr.Mni
liamson stands committed and detained for i
osed criminal matter, other than treason or felony.
n due form he prays for the writ of habeas corpus.
■The petition shows that Passmore Wil-
imitted and detained "
nal matter, other titan t
" I writ shall be isst
laity upon auy Jndge who s
tird tbe same. Im
rected tl
shall be submitted mi tin- ijiicsti, us which n
■ or neglect to
banals of justice, and which,
' T most habitually pay to tni
of Pennsylvania, against
(. all tri-
. public an.!
- establishment of
lory right
ller.-i,,i
nt. Chief Jusiiec Tilghinan held the i
(exhausted by llic issuing- ol'the iirst \\
iry, and he refused to issue ;
ted States or
_ matter (unless
I'.-liinyi, Ihe .Supreme Court has never
llimst'.A's '.nst: mnl /,.-..-/,-.•..:.-.,',,.,(■",■ ,-„„-, both decided be-
■c Chief Justice I'ilgbman.atid in fact, every ease o
} kind that has hitherto been presented to the Court, or
a .Judge in vacation, is clear to this point.
I protest, therefore, against the course pursued upon
i directly contrary to the express
-the
ments of the great s
suspendi n,
authority—and further, it
:ction pro
li ot P.lghts provi. Its shall i:ol I,.'exercised u
penlied (even by ihe Legislature) unless when, in eases of
"-- or invasion, public safety may require if,
ly, Because, by the coarse 'putsued, the peti-
w incuicfriiKii in the city of Philadelphia, is
''■■■■■■■■:'■ .-,.-■', ■ ■ ■ .:
;h the spirit or letter of every eonsiitutiou m
this country has assured to him), of being present at the
discussion of the tpiosi.lon of his personal liberty, und of
participating in thr' J:—
Third' "
required
Because the counsel of the peril
to argue, ex parte, questions on
ihcir decision, the respondent has the rigil!
which, before
lolled ami om-
have n-sp.eil'ully submitted lo tin- Court'
' nde
ideratious upon the q
i proceed, under the express direction o
■1 Coui't (if ikeUruledSlam.
' " under process of ihe I'lis-
'■ " -nnteraptof that
■t of the United States
the proceedings m thai Court, which resulted in his commitment, were wholly and absokit, ly
■a,a ,,o,i indite, and were therefore null and void.
Third, That ike fad thru the commitment is as for a
itempt does riot preclude this Court from iinpiiniig
to the jurisdu
sses to be found
First, The Su
ennsylvania is i
Cour
e Court of the Commonwealth of
I' limited. 1
lulioual p
,f the imprisonment,
r whatever pretende
i of Pennsylvania and
ihow by
entakenfrom yen ; m
inquire
ten of P
,-. I speak
a citizen of " ""
States, sincerely
when I say that j. neiieve neiuier ci
served upon any other principle or by any othei
Ihaulhe exercise, whenever the occasion shall unse, ol
the just nulhnrit.yof the Stale Courts which is now
invoked.
In t»i,.-i::dA case (Brightleifs Reports,'.)), in which
Chief Justice Tilghman awarded si writ of habra.s corpus
from the District Court of the United States, the
the hearing upon thei
issued from the Dial
brought forward d
Justirchadarighi
should be clearly of opinion l
Unite
The Courts ,,l 'I. ■ 1 ■;;■ .1 Si '• ■ I ,.-■■
ity in any case in which the State Courts may trench upon
the rightful jurisdiction of the Feder;
and tfic only mode of s
calm niisl firm per Ton nance of tl
this regard, by the State and ;
Court of the United 31
irpus—right!'j interlered,
I Honours will see—where a party w
the Supreme Court, in 5th Howard,
reported
iLean, of
who interfered by
as I think ; "
custody for
decided tllut Ihey had no appellate puvor.
The other, and a most important ease, i
was decided by Judge McLean, of ike
-■' " ' terfered t"
e people themselves;
' "ie con-
cable, I
If the
State and Federal, and of
.,1 Ike
should have, indeed, i